Yes , I agree that it'd better to merge this into sympy.core.logic , but I'm concerned about the usability. I'm not sure by how much facts.py would have to be changed, if this is done. I'll try merging it, over the week. Is it alright to break backward compatibility with sympy.core.logic? I guess if this is done, then probably the new sympy.core.logic module can be rolled out with the assumptions system. This way it can serve both purposes, without the redundancy.
I'll make sure to document it better in the next patch :) On Mar 16, 9:41 pm, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: > Hi Akshay! > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Akshay Srinivasan > > <akshaysriniva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I got git to work, and am happy to send in my patch. This one solves > > the above mentioned problems, and simplifies expressions recursively. > > > Note: boolalg/test.py is not a test! Its an example of usage. > > First my apology for being busy. The code looks good in general, great job! > > Couple comments: > > * sympy/boolalg/test.py should go into sympy/examples, if it's just an > example and it should be commented a bit more, see the other examples > * the code is missing tests --- do you think you could please write > thorough tests for all the classes you implemented? See our other > tests for examples, or feel free to ask us for help > > * > > + class exprrepr(): > + ###This is mainly meant to hlp with the simplification. > + ## Function becomes too complicated without the use of Nested > classes or functions. > + ## Nesting makes it rather hard to debug, but the final > result is > much much more simple. > + def __init__(self,expr): > > ^^ this should be converted to docstring? > > + def simpelim(expr): > + group=exprrepr(expr) > > ^^ what is this function doing? > > * in general, please write docstring to all classes and all functions > > * Also, please mention your reply to Fabian (e.g. why your code is > better than sympy/core/logic.py) in the module docstring. > > * Also, do you think it there should be a new directory in sympy/ for > that? Or do you think it could be merged with sympy/core/logic.py? Do > you think we should maintain two similar but incompatible logic > representation? Wouldn't it be better to merge them? > > But otherwise this is a very good start. Thanks for doing this, I > think we need a good logic module. > > Thanks, > Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy-patches@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy-patches+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
